tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 7, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: welcome to "washington journal." congress returns this week -- the senate returns today and the house returns tomorrow at 10:00 eastern. president obama will head to kalamazoo, michigan. he is the graduation speaker at a high school. also coverage at the white house, live at 10:00, a briefing with spokesman robert gibbs and
admiral thad allen on the recovery in the gulf coast. it will be interesting to see if helen thomas is seated as usual in her center seat after some fallout over comments she made on israel. that is where we began with a question to you about helen thomas. should she resigned from the white house press corps? for the republicans, the numbers to call in -- you can always reach us at twitter, send it to c-span-wj, and also by e-mail, journal@c- span.org. if you called in and reached "washington journal" in the last 30 days, give others a chance to have their voices heard. here is the story -- "more
thomas balad." lanny davis, former special counsel to present and -- these comments were made to a blog there and have been available online. we will give you a look at those comments. this was posted on line over the weekend. something -- some of what helen cupp -- helen thomas had to say. >> any comments of israel? >> tell them to get the out of palestine. [laughter] remember, these people are occupied. and it is their land. not german, not: -- but where should they go? >> go home. >> where is home?
>> poland, germany. >> jews should go back to poland and germany. >> and america and everywhere else. host: that video posted on a ,.com. lled rabbiliv here is "the new york post" this morning. this is concerning the ari fleisher comment. that is the former white house press secretary under president bush. your thoughts. pensacola is first on the democrats' line. curtis, go ahead. caller: i would like to make a
request that next time you have a republican or democratic person that is in the house or the senate, ask them when they are going to put a bill up for term limits and also put the social security money in the social security account and not the general account. i would appreciate that. host: we will be talking about congressional issues with david drucker later this morning. what about the helen thomas stored? caller: what happened to freedom of speech? just because the majority may be does not agree, she was just saying what she thought for felts. i may not particularly agree with our but why is it whenever somebody says something you don't like or agree with, you want to get them -- what is the word -- terminated or fired. if we did that, i don't think anybody would be working. host: a republican view from west river, maryland. joe, go ahead. caller: i appreciate the opportunity to let everyone know
that helen thomas has always been a racist biggest homophobe in her actions, and a lot of opportunities for senile dementia correctly and the white house press corps has always been an apologist for her and it is just unfortunate. she should go, no questions asked. host: columbia, south carolina, independent line. jimmy, should helen thomas step down? caller: what i find appalling is there has been absolutely 0 discussion about israel selling nuclear weapons to apartheid south africa. you all would not discuss issues of substance when it comes to israel. why is that? it has over 200 nuclear weapons and we are concerned about iran with zero nuclear weapons. anytime anything comes up about israel you all shutdown the
conversation -- c-span, all of the network news, none of you would discuss anything negative about israel. why is that, sir? host: the views of jimmy from south carolina. more about helen thomas. she agreed to about out of the commencement speech at walt whitman, high-school, in bethesda, maryland. president obama today will be speaking at a high school in kalamazoo, michigan. take a look at the front page of "the new york times" on the oil spill. the headline in many papers -- coast guard seized the cleanup lasting into the fall. damage will continue after the well is capped, according to admiral thad allen. a bit from the story --
jefferson, new york, veronica, on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. all right, she might have spoke a little bit out of turn, but why is it any time anyone of voices concern about israel -- israel has done things, and we just sit back and we say nothing about it and we are always supportive of israel. sometimes israel is not always right. so, i don't think it is fair and i think that is a lot of the reasons why a lot of -- it people feel the way they feel about our country. i think a believe they can do
whatever they want over there. in some ways, they are occupiers, whether they want to accept that or not. they won't leave that west bank that they promised to do. so, who is really storing of the trouble? and did they have to go after a ship bringing medical supplies or food? they could have checked it and made sure there were no weapons. host: helen thomas released a statement of regret on how web site over the weekend. we will read that to you. i deeply regret my comments i made last week -- you can go to our website, c- span.org, in a video library and you go through the number of times she has.
on our network and a number of white house briefings, well over 100 times over the last 20 + years. oakland, california is next. caller: i think helen thomas can say what she thinks. i think she has a point, until the israelis feel the necessity to negotiate with the palestinians, we should pressure israel and not the palestinians. i think it has been lopsided for a long time. i would back up helen thomas 100%. maybe not ejecting all of the jews from israel. host: do you think her comments were over board? caller: slightly. but basically i think she ought to be allowed to say what she
thinks. host: charleston, south carolina. john on independent line. caller: i just wanted to echo something that some of the people have talked about. has everybody knows, -- it is not to defend speech that is popular but defense speech we don't like. i think this might have been something that was bill advise that she said over the star of the moment. i am not defending it, but i think we have to be a little bit more liberal about these things because we are supposed to have a free-speech in this country. host: it appears -- john, thanks for the comment. it appears a lot of the call for her to step down as coming from both former white house officials, also coming from people who have worked with her. here is lanny davis is served in
the clinton white house. back to his comments in politico. of course, helen has the right as a private citizen to speaker mind, even as an anti-jewish bigot -- and will be interesting to see if she is in the usual position, front row center. we will take you to the white house for a briefing with robert gibbs and an update on the gulf. detroit, next up. caller: good morning. it is unusual to me but it is not surprising. any time anyone says anything regarding israel, no matter who or where it is, about israel, watch out. it has been that way until -- since 1948. i am not sure who is really
running this country because helen thomas has been saying things for years and nobody has ever made any comment about it. host: de thing she has made similar statements for years? caller: often on, sure. she speaks her piece. i know she is what the press car -- press corps. it has nothing to do about helen thomas. you don't say anything about them. host: here is cq politics credit crawford -- craig crawford. the speaker's bureau says it is with a heavy heart and announces its resignation as its agent for helen thomas, dean of the white house press corps. cincinnati on the republican line. betty. caller: how were you? host: fine, go ahead.
caller: i definitely feel that helen thomas spoke the truth. i think the attorney general said we are cowards to talk about race in this country and i think helen said is absolutely true about race in this country. you cannot say anything about a jew in this country. you cannot say anything about israel in this country. and i think it is time that everybody in this country start speaking the truth. host: would you agree with her expressed sentiments that those in israel should go back to germany or poland? caller: absolutely. i think israel, when israel was started i think everything that has happened in this country and in this world is because of israel. we would not have the problems -- host: everything in this world of the middle east? caller: i think 9/11 happened because of israel, i think the war in iraq, afghanistan, half
and because of the neocons -- the republican party, our party has been taken over by the radical views. host: your party is the republican party? caller: we would not be in iraq or against it if it were not for the radical jews in the republican party. host: betty from cincinnati. portland, maine, duane on the independent line. caller: i am jewish and i have been to israel and i would like to say that i wish we had 100 more light helen thomas -- and we use the term advisedly. we need people who ask tough questions. what israel did last week is horrible. i have been watching c-span sense it happens and you did not
even featured the story until helen thomas says something and then you make and issue what she said. that is ridiculous, nine people were killed, including american shot four times and had -- and you are becoming as fair and balanced as fox and we need more like helen thomas because there is something wrong with our foreign policy when we are not even allowed to discuss the issue of what an ally did or is doing to it as a people. host: we appreciate your views but to let you know, if you were not watching last week, we did several segments, including one with windy sherman. cleveland, ohio, wahid and the democrats line. caller: i tell you what, i agree with helen thomas. they have been over there for 60 years. i agree with her -- they were not in the middle east. not right there.
helen was right. host: if you take that to the logical conclusion, if you ask the israelis in israel to go back to poland and germany, could other people applied that to people in this country and ask people to go back to the countries they come from? caller: we should all go back to where we came from, including the white folks who took the country from the indians. they should go back to where they came from. host: wahid from cleveland, ohio. the potential united nations probe concerning the you tell it -- flotilla.
caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, helen thomas should resign. let's not be deceived. helen thomas is just the tip of the iceberg. i think most people in the left- wing media feel exactly the way she does. it is too bad that they don't understand the ties that the united states of america has with the state of israel, both in secular history and biblical history. i think if people understood that, they would be a little bit more understanding of the plight that the state of israel is facing. i just hope and pray that the united states continues to be her ally. and i do believe that god will continue to watch over her. thank you for taking my call. host: that call from florida. rush limbaugh was merit of the weekend in florida in palm beach -- was married over the weekend in florida.
market and san diego, california. your thoughts on the helen thomas issue. caller: i thought this -- her statements were spot on. they were accurate statement. the people in israel who run the country are immigrants coming from europe who were kicked out mainly because of diseases and homosexuality that was spreading in germany. the germans want them out. nobody wanted to take them. that is what caused all of the
killings. we did not take them. host: you are saying all of the killings in the holocaust were people who were homosexuals or unwanted by germany? caller: it was caused by the fact that diseases were spreading and there was a panic in the country because of syphilis spreading and because of the prostitution and homosexuality that was spreading. and this is something that has been going on the route hundreds and hundreds of years of use actually -- the jews spreading this. host: we work -- we will let you go. ohio, larry on our democrats line. caller: i believe that helen thomas was exactly right. the jews in israel stole the palestinians land and they should give it back. i believe they should go back home. thank you very much. host: story about president clinton and her trip to latin
the chart on how many times the secretaries of state over the years have visited israel. this is a bar graph. we will take a look at it. the trips to israel during the first 60 months in office by secretaries of state. leading that was henry kissinger during the ford administration who spent 46 days in israel over all during the first 16 months, tench -- during the first 16 months, 10 trips. four by cyrus vance and the carter administration. warren christopher in the clinton administration took five trips in the first 16 months. hill record with two trips to israel, they write in the fed page hill of the clinton led a toward travel pace with the exception of one place, israel could make the fewest trips and spent the least amount of time as any secretary of state in more than three decades. georgia, russia -- russell is a
republican caller about helen thomas and whether she should resign from the white house press corps. go ahead, russell. good morning. we will go to somerville, georgia, and this is brad on our independent line. caller: to cut to the chase, the whole hot-button issue of israel is a religious argument. i would like to see a debate on c-span, a discussion of the issue. you see the right wing conservative portion of our political government -- but it is the religious right. despite what you believe or -- in the end, only one regulator and that is jesus christ, the only one really knows. host: fairfax, virginia, joshua on the democratic line. caller: now, i don't think helen
thomas should resign. what she said was provocative but i know she has a string of provocative opinions, which is fine with me. it seems as if she was -- the merit of for discussion or comments was more about what people were having back in the 1940's leading up to the founding of israel. about like whether there should be a jewish state and where it should be located, and such things as that. it seems like a very emeritus thing to have been talking about. i heard lanny davis -- i read about his reaction, he compared it to perhaps helen thomas making a disparaging remark about how african-americans should go back to africa. i don't think that is the best comparison. perhaps the better comparison would be more about it helen
thomas had made a comment about the political borders of african countries, which is actually a legitimate discussion, i think. host: in another issue, do you think the white house press corps should be made up of pure reporters and/g-8 as well as commentators and opinion journalists? caller: i actually don't see much problem with them having some opinion columnist and some objective reporters. i know that there is a couple -- i think his name -- i think he is from world net daily, he is in the white house press corps as well, which is a right wing side. i think it generally can balance out especially if the press association can make sure that it is somehow balance. host: we are getting word this morning that the white house
correspondents association will be meeting today to discuss the helen thomas situation. reaction at media bistro -- they write that mocked -- mike huckabee on the fox news channel called thomas' boss remarked outrageous, anti-semitic, indefensible. evans, georgia. russell on the republican line. we got in now. caller: ok, great. every time the issue of israel comes up, the true bigots and races in this country come out in droves. the anti-semitic comments by
these callers this morning are incredible. but getting back to helen thomas. she is just incredibly biased and 19th. and she is hateful. anybody who knows world history knows that this mythical place of palestine was eliminated from existence in the 14th century. the palestinians are the one to the did go home, they should go on to jordan and leave the israelis alone. it is their land, where they lived. they have a modern society and they should be left to their own devices. but getting back to my main point, the left is so anti- semitic in this country it is just amazing to me. and helen thomas, she should be forced to resign. host: you are saying that the left is so anti-semitic but clearly people like lanny davis, now -- coming out hard against her comments. caller: yes, and he should, because lanny davis, if i'm not
mistaken, is jewish himself. but all the anti-is really causing are receiving, and that we always receive from c-span, always emanate from the left. not from the right, which is the common misconception and stereotype of republicans. we are the ones that are truly inclusive. it is the left that is so hateful and spiteful of israel in general. and i find it shocking. i am about to be 50 years old and that is where i halt -- heard all of the anti-semitic stuff, always from the left-hand side of the aisle. and i don't understand, about 75% of the american jewish population is democratic. it is the democratic party that is so vitriolic towards them. i just on understand it. host: about 50 more minutes or so of your calls on the issue of helen thomas -- 15 more minutes. tomorrow is election day in some dozen states or so. here is a look at "the
washington times." link and's seed is in play as 11 states vote on "super tuesday." that is what they call it. in arkansas, misses lincoln was forced into a primary runoff after coming in short. she got 45% of the vote and mr. halter got 43%. down in california, and a look at the governor's race. actually, this is the governor's race there -- conservative or liberal establishment or maverick, money still talks. that is the message from california as a billionaire made whitman leads multimillionaires times commissioner -- multimillionaires state insurance commissioner. republican gov. john hogan and democratic state senator tracy potter of the prohibitive favorites to win their party's nominations.
to virginia, the house democrats swept into office on mr. obama's coattails may have trouble hanging on this year. the field is rife with tea party backed republican challengers, maybe to right. six republicans are vying for the chance to take on democratic representative glenn knight -- nye. connecticut. caller: i really don't have a problem with what helen thomas said. it is her opinion, she is allowed to say it. my big thing is, i am for america. host: tie that in. what do you mean by that? caller: what i think is backed, over here, she just wanted to say what she thought and now people are jumping on her. he can't just jump on people for saying what they think. because there would be no discussion of anything. and i think that israel's interests are not in line with
america's interests over all. in some certain areas i'm sure they overlap. but i think that israel has an overarching influence, more than it is a relative -- not even say population, but the amount of people of jewish philosophy -- ideology, zionist ideology. because not all people of the jewish faith our zionist and believe in the jewish state. i would like to direct people to buchanan.org -- a lot of very good information of people care to read about it. host: here is a look at a story -- actually it slipped away from me for a moment. we will get back to it. we will go to rodney from austin, texas. another political story korea. -- another political story.
go ahead. caller: what is wrong with helen thomas exercising her first amendment? that is what america is all about. by the way, we give billions and billions of dollars of aid to israel every year. helen thomas is one of those taxpayers. why are they trying to shut her down? as a previous caller pointed out, israel overriding interest -- they have a group in this country called aipac. we caught several of those people spying on what was supposed to be their no. 1 ally. host: we have people from a packed -- aipac spying? they actually put people from that lobbies buying? caller: you have not read about it and "the washington post"? you have not read about this? host: thank you for your input.
phoenix, arizona, paul on the republican line. caller: i think that she is free to have her own opinion, but part of this problem is that people seem to think that they can stay for ever and be whatever. there is a time for people to leave, and her time to leave was probably a long time ago. host: why would it be hard time to leave? caller: she has been in their years, ok? the generation that came out of the 1960's will stay in their jobs until they die? at some point, each generation has to have their chance at stuff. and she has been there a very long time. and she has harsh opinions and she says pretty much what she thinks, and that is fine. but, i am sorry, it would be nice to hear some opinions from
the younger crowd, too. we support israel a lot, and that is fine, but the problems with the israeli-arab conflict have to do with both parties, not just one of them. you know? if these groups were not using the aid for other purposes, that is fine. but i think that some point, the people need to get the notion that it is time to leave. host: we will take your calls for the next 10 minutes about whether helen, should resign. we will be live from the white house at about 10:00, robert gibbs will be in a briefing with thad allen and the situation on the gulf coast. the front page of "the financial times" on the efforts to stop the oil flow.
that land. they are european jews. they are not semites, no more than i am. it is ridiculous to think they have a right to that land. host: northport, florida. cynthia, democratic call. caller: i have been in israel 17 times. my husband's family lives there and also we had members of family -- people just talk about israel and they did not know anything about it or have been there. they don't understand what is going on there. because it is light -- it is like a mentality we have here, nazi mentality. the jews, his grandfather was a
israel in 1906. i don't understand these people talking that way. helen thomas -- i mean, she is entitled to her opinion. but it is like a nazi mentality to talk about people should go back to where they come from, after maybe they have been living on the land may be hundreds of years. i don't understand that. it is not right at all. and the american people, i don't understand what they are doing. host: that call from northport, florida. albany, new york, mackenzie, republican of color. caller: thank you -- this affects my first time college. host: glad to have you. caller: i just wanted to say that i don't think she should resign or be pushed out or anything else, because everyone is entitled to their right of freedom of speech. and we as americans, especially in the republican party, should
support that. but i do think she should be made aware that her comments are a reprehensible. he can state a certain group of people should go back to where they come from because, yes, it does equate to ethnic cleansing, targeting a group of people simply for their religion or ethnicity. i think the situation she is going through now, i have hearr she lost her agent and friends have turned their backs on her. host: hurt agents effectively resigned -- her agent has effectively resigned. a caller: those are the consequences. that is what should happen. like when politicians say things that are outlandish, people should make them aware that we will stand for it. host: taking a look at twitter -- greg is next. jacksonville, florida.
go-ahead. caller: good morning. my feeling is that helen thomas shouldn't resign. it is just a really interesting is that usually when something is said contrary to positive or favorable policies or opinion about israel, is that there is an air of intimidation across the country to place people in fear of being able to say some things that are truthful. of course, helen thomas should not have made that kind of comment in the context it was made. bringing about the kind of response from the israeli people and other people supportive of israel. it is ok for them to be supportive of israel, however, people like c-span, all the time i have been watching since 1979, correct, any discussion about israel brings about cut off response accepted a. jimmy carter had the same kind
of response from israel. what most people may not understand is americans to see and feel what the palestinians are going through, the kind of regime going on in israel and they are tired of seeing the kind of imbalance that is causing -- costing them american lives and other forms, i.e., iraq or afghanistan. i think there should be some object to the looking at the policy. i think there should be some discussion and hopefully we don't have to see unfortunately this say -- feel unfortunately the same where the jews were feeling when they were in germany in 1939. host: you bring up a good point. sometimes it is hard for us to have these discussions. we tried to present all views wherever and whenever possible, but what the guests we choose of the topics we jews and the articles we choose, what becomes a challenge for any of us hosting this program is to keep
that discussion in the bounds of civil discussion so it does not enter into the area of anti- semitism, racism, and those areas where people are criticizing an individual or a raise or group of people simply based on their race or their color or religion or their nationality or creed. that is the challenge we have. but there are issues obviously that are important and we appreciate you contributing to the discussion. caller: c-span does a better job than anyone in the entire united states communication system. you do have a program that is much more balanced but it still does not lend itself to have the kind of in-depth discussion -- then went it comes to other ethnic groups or critical issues that impact american policy when it comes to its neighbors or even domestic policy. again, congratulations and i agree. but we should have the kind of discussion with the american people that you are hearing today in terms of their feelings when it comes on foreign policy
when it comes to israel. host: thank you for your views. we will get a couple more. i work in progress, here. janet, landover, maryland. democratic column. caller: i have a question. thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. first question is, did helen thomas speak that statement in the context of her job? was she at work at the time? host: you know, that is a good question. i will see if our producer can call of the clip and see if we can get it loaded up. i believe she got caught up by a blogger, an individual, and this was posted on the website. we will see if we can get a look at it. caller: if she was doing it in the context of her job -- host: it was not in the context of her job. clearly it was outside of the reporting on the white house. caller: ok, all right, then. i guess she is entitled to her
personal opinion. i think she and others -- i called npr and complained about a person who reported on israel and the were so pro-israel. host: how was your comment received? caller: actually, she went away after that. host: the reporter went away? caller: to some other position. host: janet in landover, maryland. i do think we have the clip. this is helen thomas, the comments she made to a blogger late last week. >> any comments on israel? >> tel them to get the out of palestine. [laughter] remember, these people are occupied. and it is their land -- not german, not poland. delaware did they go? >> they should go home. >> poland, germany. >> they should just go back to
poland and germany? >> and america and everywhere else. >host: orlando, florida. paul, republican. caller: it is my opinion that helen thomas should resign. i believe many of your callers are missing the point this morning. helen thomas has the right of free speech as each one of us does. but she has a special privilege and a special responsibility being a member of the white house press corps. she is supposed to be unbiased. i appreciate c-span for their unbiased opinions and i appreciate the comments this morning. but if i want opinions, i will listen to the commentator. i don't want to listen to somebody who represents results -- herself as unbiased especially on issues as important as israel. how can anybody read her future writing and consider her unbiased, especially when it comes to the middle east? i think it is interesting, some
of the comments about israel and israel's rights to the land that they sit on right now. if you look at the middle east, look at all of the islamic states and israel is a small area, and if you believe the bible, that god gave the land to the people of israel, as many of us do, then what is the problem with people being able to immigrate from other parts of the world to someplace that they feel safe? host: thank you for your call. here is the headlight. we will get into the story a little bit later on this morning. two suspected jihadists now that jfk airport. another newspaper, "the new york post the tiered reports of a different way. -- "the new york post," it report to this a different way.
caller: know, i don't think as the person who just spoke that god gave the land to the children of israel, i don't think god deals in real-estate and does not help give away tracks of places for the rest of eternity to one race. you had a caller that said that palestine loss -- lost its state in 1400. israel and judea lost it 2000 years ago. the other point, lieberman, a member of the knesset said palestinians should leave and go and live in jordan. he is someone not even a member
of the press but in the government itself expressing those very -- advocating ethnic cleansing. it's good just a color two more. first, talking about congress -- just a call or two more. first, talking about congress. riding of "usa today" this morning. the headline -- one more call. 3 good morning to win on the democrat's line. caller: i would say, first of all, helen thomas is just speaking truth. second of all, remember the uss liberty in 1967, israel attacked a u.s. ship in international waters similar to the way they did last week to a ship in international waters and killed
32 u.s. sailors in the process and whenever held accountable for it. israel learned well the lessons of the end nazi assassins and they improve upon those lessons. they turn gaza strip into the warsaw ghetto. host: more of your calls coming up as we turn to congress. we will talk to david drucker from "wolpaw" on what is ahead for the house and senate -- from "roll call."
>> how to expand broadband and oregon and how it can affect all states. also, time warner's recent restructuring announcement and what it means for cable customers with executive vice president. "the communicators" tonight on c-span2. >> we've got three new c-span books for you. "abraham lincoln did tilt "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grant's tomb?"
to order, go to c-span.org /books. each one also great gift idea for father's day. >> among the events we are covering today on the c-span networks, progressives with the campaign for america's future holding the political -- talking about midterm elections with an eastern and ariana huffington. on c-span2, can the peace process be saved in the wake of the gaza flotilla? live at 9:30 p.m. eastern. this afternoon, senator richard lugar holds a news conference to talk about his proposal for an energy and climate bill, talking about cap-and-trade, greenhause gases, and dependence on foreign oil. the news conference is live at 2:15 p.m. on c-span 3.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: david drucker coversr congress druckeroll call," -- david drucker covers congress for "roll call." clearly the oil spill -- what impact will this have on what congress wants to get done? guest: i want to find out if harry reid's call to his committee chairman over the memorial day break that he wants the kennedy bill on the floor before everyone hightails it, if that will be a reality or whether there be a flurry of activity around the climate change bill beginning today. most of us in washington consider that bill or anything like it, dead. remember, the house passed something like last year. it was very politically toxic for those democrats in the
midwest. we felt all along that it would be very difficult for the president to get this to his desk, and given what occurred for over a year on health care. with what happened in the gulf, though, i am wondering if now we will see fresh momentum. i personally don't tend to see it happening. but clearly harry reid in the senate wants to see it happening. unless the house wants to do something new in terms of a new bill, they will wait for the senate to pass their bill. then we will see the two sides will get together. host: the call to his committee chairs, the fast track the climate change legislation? guest: it could. or it could mean i want everyone to look at it to see where you have areas of jurisdiction and let's discuss it. one phone call this not mean immediate action. it could mean that it is back on his agenda. host: david drucker will talk about a week ahead in congress, the energy bill, and a whole lot
more. more specifically on bp, before congress left, at least half a dozen, maybe a dozen hearings so far on the oil spill. is there likely any specific legislation that will emerge from this in the coming weeks? guest: i would not be surprised. i think there will be a lot of grandstanding, hearings. people will find out whatever they can, if they have any committee or subcommittee that gives them any region to that problem. i think they will be very active because i think they will want to show leadership and some people might find it either politically necessary or advantageous. especially being in an election year where they are looking to get out in front with something positive on how you can show voters that government in washington is not so bad. host: before they did leave, the
house and senate were trying to finish up a couple of other issues, that package of tax and benefit extensions and also work on the supplemental spending bill, the war spending for iraq and afghanistan. how quickly they have to get it done? guest: i think they clearly want to get the things done before they leave for the july recess. those are clearly on the table. i expect to see both of those things finished, for sure. don't forget, financial regulatory reform goes into conference committee. it is a major piece of the president's agenda. both harry reid, the majority leader of the senate, and house democratic leaders, have been trumpeting this as a major triumph. they feel it is something they could sell at home in the fall campaigns. they will get it done before the july recess -- host: financial regulations. guest: before it breaks down, it is possible. host: there was -- about the
discussion in the conference committee on financial regulations, a big push on financial -- consumer protection. what are you hearing about what is going to survive? guest: i think the one item of the two bills that is most in danger of being dropped or changed or what have you is the derivatives regulation portion, particularly the measure that was championed by agriculture chairman blanche lincoln and the senate. there is a chance she could lose her run off tomorrow. and that derivatives regulation measure that she fought for, definitely out. and lot of people don't like it. if she wins, it could still be out. the consumer protection agency, i would like to see who will win out. i believe the senate's version is a little more moderate than the house version. in the senate in this house and the federal reserve. i just tend to think the senate
version will win out. but the real drama, i think, will be around derivatives regulation portion and blanche lincoln and the work she did being thrown out the window. host: we get a daily and weekly rundown of what is ahead in the u.s. house, for the majority leader and the wit. nowhere in there is there a mention of a bill that deals with fiscal year 2011 budget resolution or any sort of budget appropriations bill. when my house and senate gets started on a budget for 2011? guest: next year, maybe? host: resolution before the election? guest: i don't think so. the house at least will have a lot of trouble putting together a budget resolution. democrats are split. blue dog democrats, fiscally conservative democrats from a lot of republican-leaning states and house districts who want a lot more budget savings, spending reductions, fiscal
measures, then the liberal democrats who are a majority of house democrats are not enough to pass something. republicans are not -- it cannot count their votes as be available. host: are they better off going back to contestants saying we did not pass this huge -- or saying we did not do what we were supposed to do congress, which is produced a budget. guest: my advice to them if they asked me -- and they want -- is go back empty-handed. if you go back with a budget that is worded or perceived to be too much money and not taking into account the increase in federal deficit and national debt, i think that could be more politically toxic to democrats. simply because in my 10 years covering politics and 20-30 years of kind of just paying attention, i have never seen deficit and debt issues as big as the are now. the only people with a plan of
people don't get to spend the money. this is the rare case, in my opinion, where voters are engaged on this issue and actually care. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" headlines, associated press story, and now of work on the hill. here is memphis, tennessee. kerry, this -- good morning. on the independent line. caller: i think it is time for clean energy in america. this oil disaster, it is bad for both the environment and it has been bad for a long time when we byrne carbons. i think coal is bad, both when we burn it and the disasters. i think nuclear bad because of the waste and it is way past time for change. guest: i think she clearly represents a point of view in america. the difficulty with going immediately to clean energy is i don't think technologically there is a way to just turn off
fossil fuels and turn on an undeveloped an unknown technology. there are different parts of the clean energy sector that are being developed, that are being refined, and brought to the fore. but even the president recognizes before this disaster in the gulf hits, when he was approving more well and gas drilling leases, that while he clearly -- and we know he clearly wants to move to a clean energy industry in terms of energy that americans consume -- he knew it could not happen overnight. especially for an economy with 10% unemployment, it is not something that could happen tomorrow. just one last thing. i noticed she was not in favor of nuclear energy. if democrats and republicans are ever going to compromise on fast tracking any type of clean or green energy legislation, you are going to need to have a strong the clinic component in there because of that is what is going to take to get republican votes -- have a strong nuclear
component. host: asked about what impact the bp still hasn't ended to legislation. we want to take a look at some of what he had to say. >> what we need to do is passed and energy comprehensive policy that prices carbon and begins to move america to the future so we can get into the marketplace. we will have less pollution, better health, better national security, better competitiveness, increased ability to provide our own national energy policy and we will create millions of jobs. .
especially because there was a new tax or people feared that there was a new tax coming. host: stephen, savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. good to see you, mr. drucker, you are normally on the other side in your studio. i appreciate your input whatever c-span has done. my comment is amazement at the political ineptitude of the democrats. they have no sense of exploiting a situation to their manager even when they have moral superiority.
whenever there is a crisis she is always out there with the president. host: you are calling on the democratic line? caller: i am a democrat. it amazes me that even when the democrats have moral superiority the republicans always find a way to the run- down and issue. senator lugar is holding a press conference to put out his own blueprint on the energy situation. just another opportunity for him to get ahead of this issue. the democrats will sit silent. the republicans exploit the situation to their own advantage, it is amazing to me. sarah palin is the most vocal out there and more concerned
about this by next door. host: thank you. guest: i understand his frustration. when every party is in power to the level that the democrats are, it is almost a curse. a problem you want when running for office is trying to be able to implement policy in this town but it is difficult because so much is being thrown at you. democrats are finding out what republicans found out a few years ago. if you own everything in town it can be very difficult to get things done. you're voting base does not understand why you do not accomplish everything that you said you would accomplish. you say elect me to the house, the senate, we will deliver. republicans, democrats, they always find out that minority in our constitutional republic always has a decent amount of
power. on top of that you have crises thrown at you that you did not plan on when you laid out the agenda. your constituents do not always understand why with all of the power that you have you cannot deliver. host: the caller mentioned that the senator from indiana is holding a news conference today to talk about energy legislation. we will be covering that today. we will show you comments about energy legislation in a moment. oklahoma city, james is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i am calling about the energy legislation and this disaster with bp. they are not technically prepared to do the offshore drilling. if they are not willing to drill a hole in martha's vineyard,
these problems can be dealt with. guest: the only people willing to allow drilling are the states and people that lived in the gulf of mexico region. people in that region have embrace of the energy economy as it exists today. it has produced a ton of well paying jobs. texas is still based on the energy economy in large part. the only thing i would point out is that we have a lot of deep water drilling in the gulf that has occurred because it is harder to do shallow water drilling. harder to get those approvals. the deeper it goes the more difficult and dangerous that it gets. there just has not been a desire for drilling off of the maine coast.
host: yesterday john cornyn was on "abc news" talking about energy legislation and the impact in his area of the country. >> we need to be careful. rather than getting a grand slam home run i would rather try to hit some singles and develop nuclear power, battery technology that will help us deal with environmental concerns. let's look to divert more of our demand to natural gas. it is american and much less of an emissions problem and other forms of energy. host: sounds like he is opening a door on some kind of common ground on nuclear energy. guest: i think that the democrats were smart in trying to do something before the election, anything. what they would do is try
something gradual. much easier to get the votes they need, particularly in an election year. looking back at the entire agenda of the president, politically it would have been much less polarizing had he not gone big and played small ball. i understand that he and his supporters felt that big things were needed. we might find out that that was exactly what the country needed. but if you want to get something done without a lot of yelling and screaming, try something small. host: boston, democratic line. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask about the stimulus package. was something not put in their about them having an energy proposal? also, obama was elected to do big things.
that is why people voted for him. i think that you have downplayed the other things he has not accomplished. health care, education, and energy. i think that people get the wrong idea about the stimulus package. much of that money went to the states. they did whatever they wanted without money. that is the fault of the state, not the federal government. host: she talked about money in the stimulus for alternative energy. guest: i do not recall an amendment. there was a weather is asian motion -- weatherization lotion. the administration's problem with the stimulus bill is that it was sold as keeping
unemployment from rising above 8%. unemployment quickly went to 10%. not necessarily the president's fault. presidents get blamed for this all the time, but this has been his problem there. the media has clearly not downplayed education, but so far the american people are not sold. clearly this administration voted for the president to do big things. people think that they understand what they are going to do and what they want. some of the people just wanted a democrat and not a republican. once the agenda really came forward in light of current
events with the economy, clearly the president was saddled with a mess. they want leadership. they wanted someone to fix the economy, not necessarily everything depth he said he would do. george bush sometimes misunderstood his mandate. so did bill clinton. this is nothing unique to president obama. i think that he is just dealing with the strains of government in a time of crisis. host: the financial regulations bill, there is word that the white house wants to get it done before upcoming g-20 meanings -- meetings. what is the timeline that the white house is looking at? the spokeswoman said that the president was looking forward to discussing the financial overhaul.
is that at all practical? guest: democrats really want to get this done. they have got the votes and they feel that this is the one big thing, speaking of big things on the president's agenda, they can campaign on that they think will " pay off. host: you say that the thing to watch tomorrow in arkansas is if she loses that runoff there in arkansas that the derivatives to the financial regulation bill goes out. host: i -- guest: that is a real good chance, i think. yes. host: independent caller. florida, good morning. caller: technology as far as drilling down, we would like to propose that someone really rethink geothermal. build a boiler plate. something on the scale of the hoover dam but very small.
use that technology to get down to where we have free heapet. a bunch of tea kettles. no pollution, no anything. cheap electricity, cheap hydrogen from electrolysis. further down the road, water. perfect desalinization. varian expected. drilling these polls right now, people expect to get $80 per barrel coming up. there is not much incentive to see water go down and steam coming up. let's say it was nationalized. we would use the free heat from the earth underneath, recycling the water time. geologists' should be able to find solid geological faults.
guest: there are a lot of opinions about what we should do with energy future. some people favor win. of course people worry about the unsightly nature of the windmills and harm coming to birds. natural gas is supposed to be an expensive and pollution free. oil can help to keep energy prices low by now but we see what happens with oil. nuclear energy is a great way to pursue a clean energy future. the europeans have embraced it on a wide scale. people worry about nuclear waste. there is no free lunch here. americans collectively have to figure out how to go about it. host: more in common democratic line. -- lortoauren, democratic line. caller: why of the house and senate so against extending
unemployment when there are no jobs? i do not understand. they are not a regular person like i am. i am one of those people on unemployment. i would like to see it extended. the alternative to unemployment is public assistance. >> how long have you been -- host: how long have you been on unemployment? caller: 2008. host: any thoughts? guest: normally unemployment extension sales through without any problem. but we have been extending unemployment insurance for so long that there is beginning to be a debate over whether this is actually harming the economy and making the job market more difficult for people than it otherwise would be. beyond that is the national deficit. the debate pops up on capitol hill each time it is time to
extend the package. we are in favor of unemployment extensions, but we need to find a way to pay for it. the other, this is a national emergency like a hurricane, just pay for it later. never have i seen these issues come forward in debate like this. people are concerned. house members do not want to go home to say that they added to the deficit, even if it is to extend health-care unemployment benefits. host: the congress has attempted to push through an emergency package for teachers. local jurisdictions and states are cutting education spending, especially teachers. any chance that this will pass? host: there is a chance.
someone like to see it pass, but the problem will be the senate where you need 60 votes. you might be able to get a couple of republicans, but you might also have a problem with a couple of democrats. particularly in the senate is where i have seen the debate very acute. especially for the republican side all of the arguments against economic stimulus last year, those states will say that we spent $785 billion. now we need more aid. when you have headlines of the deficit continuing to rise it makes it a politically tough sell. host: pete, republican. caller: i have a ph.d. from chemistry in 1969 when i started my own business. july of 2005 i had 771 employees.
i had a layoff one-third of them in the fall of 2008 after reading about obama's associations. we can see that this federal government is destroying businesses trying to accomplish that they need to do. what do those damn fools think that we do with our profits? we hire more people. we purchased more equipment. what do we have to do with? we have a bunch of communists in this government. you have an epa that decided it is going to run roughshod over everyone. as far as energy is concerned, you are all talking about clean energy. we have to wonder and 50 million boats, motorcycles, etc., and they'll run on oil. we are going to be stuck with oil for at least 20 to 25 years.
host: quick question, what kind of business do you run? caller: i have had four different companies at one time. producing low molecular mass solvents used as the britons and anti-corrosive is. -- used as a lubricants and anti-corrosives. guest: it is a key part of the midterm election debate, is this administration's policy hostile to robust free economic growth? there are people having nice philosophical discussions that will say nothing bad about the president personally, will not say anything derogatory about his leadership, but will ask the question -- are these policies
helping the economy get out of the pit it has been in? is it encouraging businesses to grow? is it encouraging robust job growth? there is a strong sector of that country, and particularly the business community, that does not feel that this president's understands what it takes to start and run a business, as well as grow a business. they feel that until we have a different philosophy in place with policies that will encourage that, we will not see a change in unemployment. there will not be the robust economic growth to allow tax revenues to grow from the income-tax is and other things. it is simply a disagreement or where the country should go. host: 10 more minutes with dave drucker. the front page of your newspaper today, talking about the victory
of harry reid. he is not on the ballot tomorrow but republican challengers are. your article this morning about arlen specter headed back to the gop, his former aides are going back to supporting that to me -- pat toomey, perhaps with their tails between their legs? guest: not necessarily. he has a core group of republican loyalists. people that know him personally. when he switched parties they stuck by him. partially because he was an incumbent. the way that washington works is that you do not go to bat against sitting incumbent senators. also because they have personal
relationships with him. now that he has lost his primary these are people that have been republicans their entire lives. so, they're going to the democratic candidate. joe sestak, they were not going to become democrats. other than arlen specter these are people with very strong republican connections in washington. so, with arlen specter out there doing the most logical thing. which was interesting to me, arlen specter's former chief of staff, who was very strong on our inspector -- arlen specter, toomey reached out to him. everything was water under the bridge. washington is working hard with
other loyalists as members of the club for coming after moderate republicans, working with a very conservative republican to help him win in pennsylvania. pretty standard in politics, burying the hatchet and moving on. but it was not like they were always friends. some of these guys did not like toomey because of what he represented. and republican party that would not stand for moderation. he made it his mission to go into republican primaries and beat the moderate. whether or not the conservatives could win, it did not matter to him. he has reached out to moderates, now understanding what it will take for him to win in pennsylvania. his target is soft democrats and
moderate republicans. i thought that this relationship was very inside the washington and fun to report on. host: charlie rangel announced his reelection campaign yesterday. surprising strength in a car congressional career plagued with scandal. when will we hear something from the ethics committee on investigations and to charlie rangel? guest: hard to say. they never seem to give you an indication. but i do not think that it will matter. unless he is caught with a gun in his hand and someone dead at his feet, he has been there for a long time and delivered for those constituents of his. politically it is a strong democratic district. he is their diet and he matters in washington.
when your guy matters, it is a big deal. host: he will be facing the grandson of clayton powell? guest: i believe so, but it will take a lot for voters to turn. host: gary, independent line. caller: it amazes me when the democrats call in without realizing that there is really no difference. i would like ask your guest, there was a hearing when bernie sanders asked ben bernanke about the $2.20 trillion given to the big banks. if he could tell us how much and who it was given to. ben bernanke said no. so they added an amendment. this is about finance reform. something the media does not relieve report on. he said that there was no
bipartisanship. 62-37. they had no problem there when it came to the fed. no problem whatsoever with bipartisanship. you might want to comment on that. i do not think the people give us the real story ever. host: lots of people are mad at washington because of the bank bailout. because of the -- guest: lots of people are mad at washington because of the bank bailout. because of the tarp. big banks did not have to fend for themselves. when people voted for members of congress they felt that if they did not bailout the banks, if they did not provide temporary funding that to cover the troubled mortgages that were causing meltdowns, the economy
would get worse. 85% of the money loaned to the banks, it is still difficult to explain why he did that. ever since there has been a lot of agreement on both sides of the aisle that the federal reserve should be audited in congress and that there should be oversight. that is one of the few areas of financial reform where we saw a lot of compromise and agreement. i understand the frustration. it is indicative of many people's frustration. even though tarp occurred two years ago it is a major subjects in some of these races. host: joe, democratic line. caller: how're you doing? first of all, thank you for c- span. i agree with the caller that just called in. here in west virginia we are pretty much locked out from the independent party. my comment is on the energy situation.
in the gulf coast we have a terrific environmental disaster occurring because they were allowed to basically drill a well and did not have the technology in place to provide the amount of money needed to put safety standards in place. here in west virginia we are being destroyed by coal. southern west virginia in particular, our waterways are completely polluted with heavy metals. our people are dying from health issues. our water contains 100 pounds more coal waste and all of the oil leaked into the gulf. host: you have called this program a number of times about mountaintop removal. since the deep branch explosion have your local officials
responded to your concerns? guest: i have raised a lot of cain, written a lot of letters. the biggest issue is with the big branch. this is criminal negligence. in 2006 the u.s. attorney charles miller failed to indict massey energy for criminal negligence. host: i will let you go and we will hear from david. guest: on one side we have a concern for the environmental dangers. on the other side we worry what we will do without it. as the gentleman from texas made clear, it is obvious. everything that we use in terms of transportation revolves around oil. you cannot turn off the spigot tomorrow and expect to be able to get to work. we have to find a way to transition to a clean energy
future without harming the economy. this would be a much easier sell if everyone had a job for unemployment was low. if people were willing to look into the risks and costs of doing this more immediately, people worried about their job and the cost of getting to a job that they hope that, it makes it harder to embrace the cost of developing new technologies, transitioning into something that we do not know what it is. if you can get into your car tomorrow without using gasoline -- even electricity, which requires coal-fired electric plants often, let me know. we could get this done sooner. host: doug, independent line. caller: i have one comment. these energy issues have been going on for hundreds of years.
[unintelligible] c-span.ordrilling in deep water. what would you drill a well so deep? host: you talk about that earlier? guest: first of all, it is difficult to get oil and gas leases on land. it has been more difficult to get them in shallow water. deep water used to be an area that was more acceptable. it was easier to get the leases. people off the coast do not want to look at the oil wells and are worried about spilling close in. a couple of years ago we saw a republican administration trying to get approval for drilling in alaska and could not get it done. deep water drilling only became available recently because of
technological advancements. it has been one of those areas where we have an energy sector economy where we could do something like this. if you want to turn them off, that is fine, but people will have to except that they have to pay more money for their energy or deal with the risk. i think that before we decide the problem is deep water drilling, and clearly there are risks involved, it will be interesting to find out where petroleum fails to engage in all of the safety precautions required when you are doing that. if the problem is more how they run the re. -- crairig. host: "peter king is planning to introduce a resolution defending
israel against criticism it has received over the handling of the gaza flotilla incident." martha's vineyard, democratic line. caller: yes, the gentleman just answered one of my statements that i wanted to speak about. why politicians do not allow deep drilling around cape cod and martha's vineyard. i recall that during the carter administration when we were all standing in line to get gas the carter administration allotted lots of money covering the white house in solar panels.
day allotted money for -- they a lot of money for solar and wind power. when reagan took office he tore down a solar panels on the white house saying that we americans can live as we have always lived. guest: she brings up a good point. again, there is always a cliffside. recently in california governor wanted to install a solar farm in the desert. environmentalists were concerned that it would affect the ecosystem of the desert and fought against it. nothing is for free. americans have to decide what they want. there is no silver bullet green technology that exists if we would only embrace it tomorrow that has to be developed. i think that the president understands this. this is why he came out with a
more balanced energy policy before this bill. -- the spill. and not democrats and republicans understand this. -- enough democrats and republicans understand this. until we are willing to compromise on all sides, you will not see much happened. host: david drucker, he has been with "roll call" for a number of years. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: coming up we will talk to donna hopkins, taking your calls and answering your questions. first an update from c-span radio. >> a wellhead cat at the bottom of the gulf of mexico is slowly inching of the geyser of oil but there is no containing the crew
that has escaped. relief wells being drilled now will not be done until august. coast guard national incident commander admiral alan will be live at 10:00 on c-span radio and television. seafood inspectors are being presented with the daunting task of keeping tainted food from consumers. some of these inspectors are being trained to use their noses to sniff out offending voters as they scrutinize ketches held by thousands offending voterodors s they scrutinize the catches held by thousands of fishermen. allegations made by physicians for human rights charged that new research was done under the guise of safeguarding detainee
health. finally, the israeli navy today killed four palestinian militants off of the coast of gaza in the first violence at sea since the deadly raid last week. meanwhile, in his temple a 20 member security group seeks to condemn israel for the raid against church if -- turkish flotillas last week. >> the political conference in washington this morning, america's future now, including r.e.m. huffington. on c-span 2 this morning, can the peace process be saved in the wake of the flotilla incident? live at 9:30 eastern.
this afternoon senator richard lugar holds a news conference to talk about his proposal for an energy and climate bill talking about cap and trade and dependence on foreign oil. the news conference will be held live on c-span 3. >> tonight, efforts to expand abroad and in oregon with the public utility commission chairman. also, time warner's recent restructuring announcement and what it means the cable customers. "the communicators" tonight on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us for the first time is donna hopkins, the head of the bureau of political military affairs. specifically focusing on maritime security.
not many people get up in the morning and go to work saying that my job today is the fight pirates but that is a large part of what you do. guest: it is. not myself, there are lots of people who are consumed with contemporary piracy. by and large we try to deal with crosscutting, pressing issues without any other bureaucratic home. piracy counterinsurgency issues. places without residence in the state department in terms of bureaucracy. host: when you are dealing with issues like piracy you are obviously working in tandem with the pentagon, correct? guest: yes, but also internal to the department we also work with the bureau of economic energy affairs.
we work with boeotian of environmental science and regional bureaus we're in this case piracy is a pressing issue. crosscutting in that there are lots of different activities going on. humanitarian aid to eastern africa is being terribly undercut by the pirates. host: why has it somalia become a pop -- focal point for piracy? guest: first there is a lack of governance in the country itself. piracy has been going on since the third boat was built thousands of years ago, but by and large in the contemporary world many of the nation's with many maritime interests have the
wherewithal in their government to deal with their own nationals. that is not the case in somalia. i hesitate to call it a government there in somalia. they are trying very hard to deal with citizens in carrying out these attacks, but they cannot do it. you need governments to deal with piracy. you need international collaboration, which we have to a great extent in the international community to deal with piracy as a phenomenon. but countries in the region are not as strong as we would like denn to be in terms of dealing with regional aspects of the problem. -- we would like them to be in terms of dealing with regional aspects of he problem. it is very difficult to tell who is doing what in the maritime
environment. there is so much traffic. it is very hard to get a line on who the legitimate fishermen are. it is a complicated issue. host: he said in a web chat last year about the difficulty -- you said in a web chat last year about the difficulty with dealing in countries like somalia. "international investors are not likely to invest in a country with criminal gangs that threaten their investment, making somalia less attractive as a place to invest." sounds like a vicious circle. guest: it is. the one thing i would like to stress is that the greatest victims of this pirate activity are the people themselves. the ships that were targeted were those with humanitarian aid
that were destined for people who are literally starving to death. host: because they were easy marks? guest: partly because they are low and slow in the water. heavily loaded, not heavily guarded, clearly not armed. those were the initial victims. the pilots that attacked those ships are diverting and humanitarian aid from the people that need it. international shippers have invested heavily in commercial zones. they cannot rely upon their cargo getting to the place it needs to be. it plays badly in need of development, these countries need international aid and a tourist industry. they have been badly hurt by a pirate activity. longer it goes on the more
desperate these people get. the more urgently need aid. the less inclined the international aid community is to try to put humanitarian agents in those areas. host: you can your position at the state department after 30 years as a captain in the naval reserves. what was your primary role as an officer in the navy? guest: i enjoyed it very much, loving the sailors and the ships, loved the sea. but i enjoy foreign affairs even more. i think that most officers are frustrated by that aspect. but i enjoyed it. i stayed in the reserves for as long as i could but 32 careers -- 32 years as a long career. host: we have callers waiting to discuss maritime policy, piracy specifically in some cases.
california, good morning. caller: yes, i think i blame you guys for allowing this piracy to go on for so long. do you remember the drug war? ransom, ransom, ransom. you need to go there and aggressively and get them out of the way. i just do not get it. it bothers me, these opinions that are being discussed. host: your suggestion is that the u.s. navy should intervene and attack the folks who are conducting this piracy? caller: get together and stop it yourselves.
guest: we share your concern with pirate activities. there is a powerful international coalition in the area trying to intervene and stop pirate attacks. the issue of going into somalia to try to take out the pirates is much more complicated than you might think. for all kinds of reasons. a couple of things. paying ransom fuels the fire of piracy. the u.s. has a longstanding policy of not paying ransom and we encourage others to do this as well. commercial shippers have a legitimate interest in taking care of their crew. this is not a simple issue. this is also not tripoli in 1846 where the united states navy can unilaterally declare war on a subset of the population. the world has changed a lot since then. i would like to point out that
the contact group's for piracy in somalia are working very hard to try to limit the impunity of pirates, capture and prosecute pirates, putting an end to this very destructive process. destructive of enterprise, destructive of industry, destructive to the people literally being held hostage by gangs of criminals. we must also keep in mind that these criminals are being funded by someone. and it is not the 17-year-old in the boats. we have a pretty robust effort to try to determine where the funding for these pirates criminal enterprises are coming from. host: what is your best sense of where this is coming from? like guest: more work needs to be done that. recently an elected kingpin, a
self-proclaimed pirate king, was apprehended. host: in the u.s.? a gap -- guest: he is not yet in the u.s.. it remains to see where he will be taken. we hope to be able to learn more from him about the funding network that is enabling his criminal enterprise, doing so much damage to the somali people. host: gary, in the end of line. -- independent line. caller: i am concerned that when you gave your synopsis about in the pending -- about the underpinning pirate problems in somalia, you left out the fact that the reason they became pirates is because europeans came into use their large ships and nets, taking out the coast
of somalia. these former fisherman have now become pirates because the fishing was taken out. i am not quite sure why that part of the history was left out of your synopsis into how piracy came to be a part of somalia. host: you bring up a good point. i will say that the illegal fishing and reporting toxic dumping are crimes against the somali people. they should be stopped and we do work hard, collectively in the united states and the international community, to discourage illegal fishing. i take issue with saying that it causes piracy. hostage taking and kidnapping for ransom are inexcusable. the fact that some molly waters are being exploited -- somali
waters are being exploited is a major international issue that must be dealt with, but i wonder if we can justify this kidnapping and extortion, blaming it on the fishing practices of other nations. i absolutely think it will need to collectively do something about that. i do not think that the piracy of epidemic can be because i -- can be justified because of fishing. host: democratic line, good morning. go ahead with your comment. caller: as far as i know, in my schooling piracy began when they first started building boats. i do not think it ever began with a certain country. i do not think you could never
stop it. because who knows who is doing it or why? they're doing it because they do not have what they need. host: clearly it is more accelerated than in recent memory? guest: yes, let me point out that piracy have been all over the world to a limited extent depending upon the ability of the government concern to deal with criminal tyrant. piracy in the straits of morocco was a big problem for quite a long time until the government in the area got together and decided to end the impunity of pirates. they collectively acted together to identify and prosecute pirates in such a way that it was such a dent in their enterprise that it is a
manageable law enforcement problem. piracy in the caribbean, without any illusions to johnny depp, continues to be a problem. most of the nations in the caribbean have the wherewithal to prosecute him captured pilots. of fortunately in africa the governments of those regions simply do not have the capacity to govern their patrol areas and force laws against piracy and hold pirates accountable. that is where we need to focus most of our international energy and resources. setting up a legal machines and enforcement policies and in ways that will make piracy on profitable. host: one viewer says that we could chase off the poison numbers from the waters -- dumpers from the waters.
i believe that there was a new ship christened with a specific task to focus on piracy. could you give us more detail on how the navy operates in international waters and dealing with potential pirates? >> the u.s. navy -- guest: the u.s. navy is operating with 26 other nations in an unprecedented show of international cooperation and coordination. together they are attempting to police an area that is roughly four times the size of texas. with thousands and thousands of ships. you cannot tell just by looking what a pirate ship is. host: thousands of commercial ships? guest: merchant ships, commercial ships, it goes back to the maritime problem. until we deliver a better way to
trim the understand what is going on on the surface of the ocean, and the coalition navy is going to have a very hard time zeroing in on preventing and pre-empting pirate attacks unless they are caught in the act. keep in mind we are talking about a coalition of dozens of ships as opposed to fleets of thousands. simple pirate interdiction is a very difficult process. and the way that the pirates act, they pick ships but not necessarily guided by any intelligence, that they think that they can run up to and take control love before the ship reacts. the best deterrent to piracy is not to encounter a pirate in the first place.
it ships would notify through standard nautical procedures the maritime safety routes, they can get routing information. folks can be notified as to where pirates or, where the activities have been noted. they can conduct maneuvers and most importantly they can put additional watches on their ship. self-protection is the best thing that ships can do. failing that, intervention is very difficult. because these pirates act very quickly and at random. right now it is hard to tell where pirates will be acting. in the last few months they have been operating literally over thousands of miles over the coast of somalia. that is a lot of ocean for the navy and the coast guard to patrol. in the near term the
international community has acted together to try to prevent piracy. the best thing that they can do is protect themselves by being very alert, ready to take evasive maneuvers. making sure that naval patrols know where they are. host: are there currently unable citizens being -- u.s. citizens being held captive by pirates? guest: not to my knowledge, now. host: republican line. caller: good morning. terrorists, these pirates, they are after one thing. below them out of the water. after a while they will get the message. we need to go in wherever those places are in just annihilate them. host: our commercial ships arming themselves in the wake of
piracy? guest: some commercial ships are taking on armed guards. i have a certain amount of sympathy for your position except for the fact that there could be a loss of vince -- except for the fact that the loss of innocent human life would be so great. tyrant, as far as we know, are extortionist. kidnappers for ransom. criminals. the somali pirates business model has not really been so much terrorism, they tend to be criminals that what profits. they want money. they have not been actively harming their crews that they take hostage. they want the ransom money. every ransom paid adds fuel to the fire. i have a hard time with the idea of unilaterally killing the innocent crews of the ships taken hostage to get at the
pirates. that is another point. most of the pirates are under- educated, under-trained, frankly 17-year-old kids with guns who have been blurred by finance years -- blurred -- word -- lured by financvirtd. -- financiers. host: what is the typical ransom that is asked for? guest: it varies. some of the large ships that are targeted are worth more to the company's than what they pay in ransom. because of the value of the ship, the cargo, and the lives of the crew are far more than their ransom. the pirates know this. host: mississippi, good morning.
caller: i need to point out that somalia has no government. the united states fronts ethiopia to invade every time, the u.s. reinforces the rules in somalia. my question is why our somali pirates considered outside the bounds of international law when they are dumping nuclear waste in their waters? what about an international bodies such as the united nations? israel is considered to be acting in self-defense when it hijacks and kidnaps humanitarian ships. why is the u.s. backing israel and not somalia in the united nations? guest: you have wrapped several issues into one question. clearly you are passionate.
first, let me point out that the united states does not fund ethiopia to invade and disrupt somalia. in fact the united states has taken great pains to support the transitional federal government of somalia in an effort to bring a stable government to that country. we are trying very much to help the somalis govern somalia. as far as the united states being the police on the scene to prevent the misuse, dumping, or you illegal fishing, the united states is working in concert with the international community to try to curb that activity. we know that it is detrimental. and not only degrades the ability of somalia to take care of itself but also degrades our environmental stewardship of the area.
the illegal fishing, toxic dumping, any kind of detrimental activity to the maritime environment works against all of us. in the near term and words against our interests as well as the long term. i would like to think the united states is attempting to contribute to the solution and not the problem. .
any time there's a serious environmental disaster, that the grades are human collective storage above the world. it is detrimental for a lot of reasons. food security is a big priority. we have an entire bureau of people who work on the oceans, environments, and science to promote responsible stewardship of the ocean, fisheries policy, climate change, stewardship of the environment. i think we were pretty hard to try to make sure that we, the international community, have a collective and mutually supportive reenforcing relationship to protect our oceans and the food stock that we all depend on.
host: mississippi, democratic caller. beverly, new jersey, go ahead. caller: great show. first, i want to thank you for your service in the navy and your long career. guest: thank you. caller: now i am going to chastise you. as far as it goes, having sympathies for people who ride around with heavy machine guns to do whatever they're going to do to the merchant shipping and the international waters -- we can get them. we do not really need the navy to do this. we can use the uav's, like they
do in afghanistan and iraq now. is the merchant ships are attacked by the pirates, i believe the first thing they do, they do radio for help. if the uav is in the area and they see a pirate vessel tried to board a merchant vessel -- what is wrong with eliminating the threat? and not being too nice to these people. the american people bend over backwards and a hamstring our military from doing their jobs like they are supposed to do. guest: i want to thank you for your comments about service in the navy. it's an honor to serve in our navy. i do not disagree with you that we should be unit is in action to those who take advantage of, and frankly abuse, shipping. i have no sympathy for pi
rates. the idea of uav's being used is not new. there are uav's. that's a lot of water to cover. pre-emptive strikes against a typirates -- they look like legitimate fishing vessels. it's not as simple as you might think. once a pirate attack starts, the right of self-defense kicks in. the coalition navies who respond can defend the ships, and they do that. pre-emptive targeting, prior to
an actual attack, is a pretty slippery slope. i do not think the united states -- we pride ourselves on being a nation of law -- i do not think we want to get in the business of preemptive murder on the high seas based on the position that somebody might do something. once an attack has been done, it takes about 18 minutes for them to take control of the ship. there's not a lot of time to react at that point. i think we have to be very careful. we have to be on the side of the rule of law. we need to make sure that the people we target are actually criminals taking part in crimes. there's also an issue of proportionality of response. it sounds easy. it is not easy. that comes that to my point that very often these are underfed, under educated teenagers who are
taking part in these attacks. we might just be killing the wrong people, frankly. host: next call, kentucky, samuel on the line for democrats. caller: i was calling about the borderline in mexico. host: we are focusing on piracy, samuel. caller: i see what you're talking about. the pirates -- there should be patrol's checking them when they come on the water to make sure of what they are doing and to find out what they are doing there should be a patrol all the time checking them out to see what they're doing. guest: that is not an unreasonable thought, samuel. somalia alone has an 1100 nautical coast line. there are thousands of ships and boats in that area. simply patrolling and trying to
determine who has the intention is to commit crimes is not as simple as you might think. there's also an issue of simple adequacy of coverage with the coalition naval forces that are operating there. it's not a really practical response. i will respond to the issue of mexico, because there have been reports of piracy along the border. that is primarily a law enforcement issue between two perfectly capable governments and law-enforcement entities. i am confident that our government, working with the government of mexico, can get the problem under control. i'm not as confident that even a very concerted strong international coalition to deal with the problem over the long term with piracy off the coast of somalia, unless we start
concentrating on finding the people who are financing this illegal activity, and start holding them accountable. and start holding pirates accountable for the damage they are inflicting on their own people. host: a suspect is now going on trial in new york. guest: that is the first young man convicted for the maersk alabama. host: we have more of an environmental question here. guest: i am not. i'm sure that many of my colleagues are. environmental degradation concerns all of us. our folks spend a lot of time trying to orchestrate international efforts to protect the maritime arena environment and to clean up disasters when
the strike. host: the administration released the new strategy. is there anything in the document that relates to piracy or the other work that you do? guest: there's quite a lot of burbage stressing the need for greater maritime security. we live in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. maritime security does get a much-deserved focus in the national security strategy. we work closely with the national security staff of this administration and previous administrations, who have been very expansive in their approaches to improving the way that we deal with the maritime domain. host: from the u.s. national security standpoint, how much of a challenge is the fact that now the arctic ice shelf is more open for commercial and other
shipping traffic? guest: i do not think it is a major concern. it is a area of policy focus. the arctic has been an area of emerging interests because there are lots of natural resources there that may soon be exposed to it explication. it is an area that we watch, but i would not call it a security concern at this point. there's a lot of international engagement an agreement on the protection of the arctic. it is an area for potential and very collaborative and cost of engagement. host: here's a call from jupiter, fla. on the republican line. caller: good morning. it looks like the pirates are back. i have not heard you talk about something we used to do in the
wild wild west. the government put a bounty on the yelloutlaws. they engaged private individuals or companies to go after the pirates. congress used to authorize these private parties -- you could have somebody like blackwater, for example, do this more efficiently than the military. there's too much coast line to cover, as you said. they could specialize and find out where the hideouts are and go after them. the only way the government needs to be involved is to have a bounty. ron paul made a proposal in 2001. he introduced the act in 2001 to also target osama bin laden. that it's when you have pirates or outlaws that do not have
an affiliation with a particular country. secondly, i'm trying to understand the israeli boarding of the boat in international waters. that seems to skate around the idea of piracy as well. if america cents a humanitarian ship to gaza -- and let's say they killed her -- how would they react differently? they should have been exempt. that seems like an act of piracy to me. thank you. guest: thank you for your questions. the idea is not new. the government talked about that. the issue of private security companies given licenses to hunt down and potentially kill people that they think might be guilty of something might go against
our core values as a country. i do not think it is terribly supportive of the idea of rule of law. the idea is still out there. it has currency in some areas. i would be concerned about turning loose independent agents under no one's control, and accountable to no one, with arms, to hunt down someone they think might be guilty of something. i think that's fraught with legal, humanitarian, and larger policy issues. it is still being debated. i would say that the world we live in now of international and national accountability, and the rule of law, does not lend itself to bounty hunters on the high seas. i won't write it off, but i would have some real concerns about that. with respect to the israeli situation, all i will say about
that is we really need the facts before we come to judgment. i cannot say what the united states will do under certain circumstances. i do not think there's anything analogous to the somali pirates situation here. we will be able to address the whole situation, with respect to the gaza flotilla. host: philadelphia, good morning to david. caller: good morning. good morning. earlier you segued into the situation in the gulf of mexico. i'm understand that we're talking about pirates. it is kind of similar to what is going on, in my opinion, in the gulf. the corporations are basically breaking our environment. the citizens have to deal with it. with respect to what happened in
israel and somalia, these are tragedy events. too many times in government, nobody has an original idea. we not focused on what is going on at home, but we are always running around a world. i'm not saying that there does not need to be regulations and international bodies of authority to do with these issues that affect us globally, but this is something that is going on right here at home. taxpayer money is going into this big cleanup and the corporations are getting away scot-free. it has already gone into florida. i do not believe we will be able to go to the beach next year. host: donna hopkins, any thoughts? guest: david, there are a lot of different parts of the government that are focused on different aspects of what you touch upon. there are a lot of smart people,
not only in my agency, but the department of homeland security, department of justice, department of commerce, department of agriculture, that are focused on trying to respond to, and have in the past tried to prevent the kind of things better happening now. you can read in the newspaper what different entities with responsibility are trying to do with respect to this particular situation. in the international community, there's been discussion ongoing for many years about how we selectively exercise better stewardship over are shared resources. that is, the riches in the sea bed, the sea lies that we all depend upon. there are a lot of efforts to try to come to a common understanding on how we will protect those collectively. i share your concern. i'm from texas. this is a terrible disaster in the gulf of mexico.
i really cannot speak to what this or any other government could do, is doing, or will do in the future to try to prevent this type of disaster. host: donna hopkins has been with the state department's 1998. -- since 1998. active duty for 13 years. the navy is part of this coalition of navies that are trying to fight the somali pirates situation. who coordinates those activities? guest: there is an international group that is chaired in a rotating basis by several different nations. i believe there are 26 nations navy's actively collaborating to patrol and respond to the areas affected by piracy. the chairmanship of the group rotates among the different nations whose navies are
participating. in my opinion, is a model. it is an unprecedented degree of a collaborative response. countries that we would not normally have expected to be working together constructively are very constructively working together and actively courted meeting to try to deal with this. i'm proud of my service in the navy. i have to tell you that today's navy is even better than the navy i came from. these men and women are incredible. host: did you come through the naval academy? guest: i did not. there were no women at the naval academy. i joined the navy long before women could go to the naval academy. host: a couple more calls. good morning. caller: thank you very much for your service in the u.s. navy.
on your support of israel and your support of -- we must remember the u.s.s. liberty. what is the answer on that? guest: i do not have an answer, sir. thank you very much for your kind comments. i'm proud to have served. it's a great honor to die cannot respond to your question about liberty because i do not know that is relevant. -- it's a great honor. i cannot respond to your question about liberty because i do not know that it is directly relevant. caller: good morning. i have a question to you say there are thousands of miles on the somali coast that need to be patrolled, which is impossible. there is a collaboration of unilateral world support for
that security. how do you feel about possibly supplying drones to the coast to specific areas to monitor certain ships? also, to touch on mexico, i think you are wrong. i think mexico needs to be rebuilt. people are coming across the border because it is such a hot environment. guest: i'm supportive of the use of drones. we are currently using unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol certain parts of that area of. that is a useful tool in the will probably expand the use --
it is a useful tool. we will probably expand the use of that. with respect to mexico, and probably more optimistic than you are. i think our two nations working together will be able to get this situation along the border under control. i'm more confident than you are. the area that needs to be patrolled along the coast of somalia is only part of the issue. patrolling is good. interdiction is something we have to do. we need to find better ways to prosecute the pirates that we do captured to end their impunity did we need. we do not know what is happening to the ransom money. i do not think it is going to the good of the somali people. the real issue is helping the transitional government of somalia to exert the ability to
control its own territory. we should not have to have a standing international coalition to patrol the coast of somalia. we need to help somalia developed that wherewithal itself. that's the primary focus of the u.s. government and the international community. host: part of the effort, trying to find out where the money is coming from, is tracking where the ransom money goes. where does that cash go? guest: that is the million- dollar question. the cash that is paid in ransom in a variety of different currencies is very hard to track. the financial systems in that part of the world are largely informal. they are not formal banking systems. it's a great challenge. we have a lot of people working very hard on that issue, trying to determine where the ransom money goes, and where the
financing originates to buy the weapons and the boats. there has to be a major financial network. this is not a simple enterprise. this is a major, international enterprise. host: baltimore, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. america is not addressing the root of the problem. i'm originally from africa. i know exactly what goes on in our continent. the truth of the matter is that there are nuclear weapons dumped on the shore of somalia by international companies. you have fishing vessels that come on the shore of somalia and taking all the fish. the people are hungry. what do we expect them to do? die?
[inaudible] the environmental damage is done. nigerian people are dying. that is what we go through in africa. the whole world sit and watches. host: we will hear from donna hopkins. guest: i think we are focused -- piracy gets a lot of attention because it seems to capture people's imagination. they mistakenly equate that to "pirates of the caribbean." it is dangerous activity that hurts the people of the coastal nations. that does not mean that we do not focus on what you referred to as the root causes. that is, the inability of governments to deliver public
benefits to their people. the inability of governments to protect their own resources. the inability of the governments to give citizens what they need, which is daily security and a adequate access to the resources. off the coast of somalia, one of the major working groups of this 48-nation consortium is focused on building the capability of nations to work for themselves on addressing root causes. under the auspices of the united nations, there's a major international contact group focused purely on somalia. with respect to nigeria, there's a great deal of international attention going to that area of the country. speaking for americans, we understand and empathize with the people in africa who are trying to do so much with so
little. you did not even mention other places that are also suffering. i do not think we are ignoring the root causes, but there are so many problems. every country has a slightly different problem. we are trying to help address the root causes. host: is there evidence of nuclear dumping? guest: i have seen a tv documentary that was focused on a european ship that was dumping toxic waste. i do not know that it was a nuclear. i do not know if it was verified. i suspect the outrage among somalis is very real. i do not think that were announced criminal behavior toward extortion, kidnapping, and hostage-taking is the appropriate response, even if it were true. those are two completely different paths.
one is not going to solve the other problem last. host: call for donna hopkins. south bend, indiana. caller: good morning. host: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i agree with what the last caller touched on. the problem is poverty. have americans over there taking oil out of africa. you have europeans over there stealing diamonds. these are natural resources that belong to africa. [inaudible] you are making a comparison about the movie with johnny depp. people do not even have tv's to watch these movies. they hear these things passed down through generations. host: you are breaking up a little bit. donna hopkins, any last words?
guest: i have a common 3 we have great empathy for the fact that poverty is a crushing problem in africa. i think the people who would excuse piracy on the basis of poverty do great disrespect to the millions of proud and productive smalleomalis for tryg to deal with their situation in ways that do not involve the extortion of other human beings. the proceeds from piracy do not helping alleviate the poverty of these nations. piracy is adding to the poverty of the nation because it suppresses international development. suppresses tourism. it is discouraging humanitarian aid. the united states government is
aware and we're doing a great deal to try to address it. host: donna hopkins with the state department, thank you for being with us. in just a moment, we will talk to andrew mccarthy the national review. he has a new book, "the grand jihad: how islam and the left sabotage america." we will take your calls. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> president obama's first high- school graduation speech will be delivered in
southwestern michigan tonight for. the high school won the nationwide challenge. live coverage of the president's speech will start at 7:00 p.m. on c-span radio and television. vice president joe biden says the u.s. and its allies are looking for new ways to address a range of problems in the blockaded does a strip. the vice president spoke today at a red sea resort in egypt after meeting with the president. in vienna, international atomic energy agency is holding a board meeting to discuss the nuclear program of iran, syria, and israel. the agency described iran as "a special case" for the team. the u.s. has criticized the inclusion of is to go on the
agenda, saying it has not violated any commitments. in chicago today, lawyers for firmablagojevich will make finay decisions. the former governor has pleaded not guilty to scheming to profit from his power to fill the senate seat vacated when barack obama became president. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. host: among the events we're covering today, progressives with the campaign for america's future " in their political conference in washington. this morning, they're talking about the midterm elections. on c-span2, that is the topic at the carnegie endowment for
international peace. this afternoon, senator richard lugar will hold a news conference to talk about his proposal. we will have the news conference on c-span3. >> tonight, efforts to expand broadband in oregon and how expansion would affect all rural states. also, the recent restructuring announcement of time warner and what it means to cable customers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from our studios in new york, andrew mccarthy, contributing editor with "and national review" and author of the new book, "the grand jihad: how islam and the left sabotage america." andrew mccarthy, you had written
previously in your previous book about threats from islamic jihad. why did you return to the topic in this book? guest: the first book was about the difficulty of trying to use the criminal justice system to address what is really a national security problem. the idea behind this book was to get deeper into what the national security problem is, and try to explain that it is more extensive than just terrorism. host: you used the phrase, "the grand jihad" in your title. what does that refer to? guest: it's drawn from a 1991 muslim brotherhood memoranda and. the brotherhood, which is really the front of islamist ideology, founded in the late 1920's. in the memorandum, the brotherhood refers to its work in the united states as "the grand jihad" which is designed
to 7 touch the united states from within -- which is designed to sabotage the united states from within. host: is the muslim brotherhood a u.s. founded organization? guest: it is a worldwide organization that was founded in egypt in the late 1920's. interestingly, it was founded very much in reaction to the program to suppress islam from society in turkey. the idea was that the problem in the muslim world was not enough is onlam. now it is a worldwide organization. host: you wrote about the religion of peace fantasy. what is your assessment?
guest: i do not think it is really a religion. it is a comprehensive social, economic, political, and legal movement that has spiritual elements. it's really an ideology that aspires, not only to dominate the world, but also to govern the details of daily life down to a very granular level. host: our guest is andrew mccarthy until about 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will take your tweets as well. the subtitle of the book, "how islam and the left sabotage
america." how do you see the left in the u.s. aligning with islam? guest: i am talking about islamists, which is not the entire muslim world. when i'm speaking about the left, i'm speaking about the hard left. it's not really a hypothesis that they may work together. they are infected to work together. for example, the center for constitutional rights, which is a radical organization begun by the attorney in the 1960's, has represented al-qaeda and has been at the forefront of their representation since the 9/11 attacks. the council on american islamic relations has teamed up with the aclu in litigation against, for example, the patriot act. it is a leftist program. there are many historical examples of the two working together. the communists, for example, and
the round worked together -- and iran worked together. this is not really a hypothesis. i tried to explore a phenomenon and try to get to the bottom of why it happened. host: you're critical of president obama and his bowling to the king of saudi arabia. you wrote that saudi arabia is the cradle of islam. host: how much different is the president in that gesture different from president bush and holding the hand of the king, or in other presidents being very deferential to the saudi kingdom? guest: the fragile is one thing. i do discuss the handholding.
american presidents do not bow to foreign dignitaries. it was a bold missed judgment on the part of a president to bow to this monarchs, who has bankrolled -- his kingdom has bankrolled the islamist ideology, which is a broader threat to our society. when i say that it is a shared dream -- some people have asked me if i think president obama wants to impose that law, no. the islamist movement and the hard left today have a common obstacle.
obama is targeting that in his domestic program, as well as some of his foreign policy. of course, it's the main obstacle to the islamist ambition. host: let's hear from our c-span viewers. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to have your guest to address this particular islamic fascist propaganda line. i could not get over the number of people this morning in colwho called. if they were not anti-semitic, they were absolutely ignorant. the fact is that the saudis -- it has been building in this country and all over the world. their propaganda line is very
simple. their religion is better than any other. they want to impose sure real law on all places. spain is part of the hegemony. they believe spain as part of their hegemony. obviously, we see this constantly. you have this myopia -- you have this ignorance that they believe that islam means peace, when it means submission. host: he used the term sharia law, as well. what does that mean? guest: we have talked about jihad quite a bit. some people say is an always, everywhere combat operation. others want to revise it to mean something benign, like an
internal struggle for personal betterment. it is not either one of those. jihad is the mission in islam to spread sharia law, the islamic legal and political system. it's not simply a set of principles, but a fool purpose s -- full purpose system. it's deemed to be the necessary precondition the mission of jihad is always to spread sharia law. it can be done 5 lead. -- it can be done by lviolently. it is proceeding on many fronts far more extensive than terrorism. host: next, at joe on the line for republicans.
caller: good morning. when i saw you on this morning, i thought it was very interesting. i've been giving a lot of thinking recently about the fact that even before world war ii, the middle east in germany were very copacetic, very together, in their approach to their control and how they approached government. i just recently talked to my aunt in england last week about this. so many of the people just flowed into england from all over, bringing with them all different versions of the islamic belief. i think it has created an enormous problem.
i do not see it changing for this country. i think there is a hit an element here that really worries me for my grandchildren -- i think there's a hidden element here that really worries me for my grandchildren. no matter what style of the aisle you're on, we have something to take to heart here. i would like to hear your comments. thank you. guest: i think islamists and leftists disagree on a wide variety of subjects. i do not want to trivialize th is. there are big picture items that they have in common did they are both authoritarian in nature. for the islamist, it is the islamic state in forcing enforcing -- in forcinenforcing.
they both want to dictate your behavior down to small details. for both of them, the culture of individual liberty is really the target of an obstacle to the types of utopias that they would like to impose. the reason, historically, that they have worked well together, has been that wherever you see both sides aligning despite the fact that they have differences -- it is generally because they have a common obstacle or enemy.
whether it was the shah in iran -- there are other historical examples. when they work together the best is when they can overcome their differences because they have something in common that is an obstacle. host: as an assistant u.s. attorney for new york in the 1990's, andrew mccarthy led the prosecution against the blind sheikh. what lessons did we not learn in the aftermath of 9/11? guest: we immediately clamped down on any consideration of the role of islam in that attack. i think that was a really tragic error. to the extent that we can and should be in powering authentic muslims trying to reform their
religions, by moving away from any consideration of the islamist ideology that was the catalyst for the attack, we missed an opportunity to study the aspects of sharia, which are antithetical to american republicanism. we made a tactical error, which we have built on since 9/11. there have been a lot of sweeping claims on both sides. if we had not only engaged islamist ideology, but thought about it in terms of civil rights -- many people who are natural allies in the civil rights community -- to what should be the struggle to save western life -- it probably
would have lined up on the right side. as it happens, all these years down the road from 9/11, and it has been 17 years since what i think was the jihadist declaration of war, the bombing of the world trade center -- most people do not know that sharia does not endorse freedom of conscience. it does not support equality between men and women, equality between muslims and non muslims. it rejects the very premise of american constitutional republicanism that the government have a right to make law for themselves in respect of any religious code -- is respecrrespective of any religis code.
we would be in a lot better shape than we are. host: next call is from los angeles. make sure that you turn down your television set. is this mary in los angeles? caller: no. host: here's mary. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask you -- before the 9/11 attacks, i understand there were several of the bin laden family living in different places in the united states. was there any investigation performed on what exactly that family was doing in the united states?
also, why were they flown out united states right after 9/11? guest: i think those are excellent questions. in the book, i do talk about the very strange to him statistics which some bin laden -- very strange circumstances. some of their lifted -- air- lifted out. i find that to be one of the really troubling aspects of the post 9/11 period. i do not have a good answer. i try to lay out why it happened. host: president obama made a speech in cairo one year ago picked the has thawed in "the christian science monitor -- one
year ago. i want to play in a short clip. >> i have come to cairo to seek a new beginning between the united states and muslims around the world, based on mutual interest in mutual respect. and one based upon the idea that america and islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. instead, the overlap and share common principles. principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. host: andrew mccarthy, one year later from that speech, what you hear from the president's efforts in cairo?
guest: president obama -- one of the interesting things he said in cairo, which i agree with, was that for us in america to understand islam, we have to understand what it is and what it is not. he proceeded to say what it is not, unfortunately. he talked about a vision of islam that does not mesh with the reality of islam. we ought to recognizeethe fact that islam is very diverse. many muslims do not want to live under sharia law. he would be quite right to say that we have commonalities. what you cannot avoid is the fact that there are hundreds of millions of muslims who go the other way, who subscribe to
islamist ideology, which is not only the catalyst for a fringe of terrorists, but also a much broader based what they regard as a civilization movement to bring the west under sharia law. if you ask people in the muslim world if they agree that it is legitimate to kill even muslims that do not subscribe to a certain strict interpretation of islamic law, the president would be quite right to say that is a fringe position. it may get 10% of the muslim world. for my money, that's a frightening amount. if you change the question and you say, "do you think it is all right to kill americans who are operating in islamic countries, even if they think they're doing
humanitarian mission work, do you think it is ok to destroy israel?" those propositions -- you jump from 10% to something more along the lines of 50%, 60%, or 70%. a lot of these propositions are supported in the muslim world. i do not think we can pretend that is not true and keep ourselves safe. host: ellen on the line for independents. caller: good morning. can you expand in a little bit on how the title represents an ongoing process and how the u.s.
congress plays a role in this? guest: what i'm talking about is a particular part of the left and a particular part of islam. the harder elements of both. congress plays into this equation the same way we all do. before you can deal with a sabotages strategy -- that is their word, not mine. before you can deal with that, you have to realize it is going on. once you do realize it is going on, it's incumbent on our representatives to take every measure that they can take, legal, social, and political, to try to marginalize the elements that are threatening to us. as far as the military terrorist aspect is concerned, that in many ways is an easier part of the equation. it is simple to understand.
if people are trying to project power and mass murder americans, we do not have any alternative but to attack them, capture them, and kill them. we cannot pretend that we are going to sign a treaty with those people. with respect to the broader challenge to us, that is something that is more about politics than military. we need to know what is going on and try to marginalize it. host: another common here on the president's speech in cairo. richmond, va., and charles on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. when the founding fathers came to the new continent, they boughrought korans with them.
slavery is islamic. when they left, most of the europeans did not delike slavery. the constitution of the united states had to be revised. people always talk about how they wish they could go back to the old ways of the constitution. i'm a blacc person in america and. [inaudible] host: charles, there's a breath connection. andrew mccarthy, anything there you want to respond to? guest: despite the fact that slavery is the darkest chapter in the history of our country, it is a chapter that we overcame. the caller is thought that there is islamic scripture, which is approving of slavery, for that reason world. host: you argue in your book that president obama crafted his
message and images for a muslim world. outside of the speech in cairo, give us a specific ongoing example of that. guest: the president follows the same practice that some of the islamists in america could do. they present a sanitized version of what some of the scriptures say. for example, you get constant coating of the scripture that talks about -- in islam, if you kill one person, it is as if you killed the entire world. if you save one person, it is like you saved the entire world. in the next first, they talk about -- those who wage war against islam, their fate is crucifixion. i do not think it helps us. i do not think it helps the president's cause to cite only
the pleasant, congenial stuff that is in the scriptures, and pretend like the author's death is not there. empowering the large segments of the islamic world -- need to encourage them to develop a the logical theory that can compete with the islamists. even though the islamists -- some of what they want to accomplish, we regard it as reprehensible. one thing you cannot say is that it is the rational -- is that it is irrational or there's no nexus to islamic doctrine to what they teach. eric teachings are supported by some of the great scholars of the islamic world. we need to be able to compete with that, if that is doable. host: president obama is a professed christian.
do you believe that? guest: i sure do. i think is relevant that president obama has roots in the muslim world. obviously, he thinks it is relevant, too. if we're going to defend western civilization -- in our civilization, if you declare your a christian, you are a christian. it's in the civilization that we need to worry about that if you have ever been a muslim, if you leave, that is a capital offense. host: let's hear from washington, d.c. on the line for democrats. caller: i would like to challenge his scholarship. for centuries, i believe christians killed christians in great numbers. and muslims and everyone else. there was kristin jihad -- there was christian jihad. was christian jihad.